I do believe that the copyright rights include "distribute" as well so yeah Aereo is at fault. Pretty obvious really.
Which is not to say that change isn't needed but their tact was not the right one. We need the FCC etc to change the rules of play. Kill the oligopoly, etc
Again, how is it any different from you installing a tuner card onto your computer, recording a program onto your HDD/SSD and then streaming it using media center software. It's the same thing except it's off-site.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
You are not making a profit doing it. You are not selling that stream access to your neighbor. That’s the difference. The antenna rental argument is a straw man and the SCOTUS confirmed that. This has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with profiting from someone else’s copyrighted content.
Again, how is it any different from you installing a tuner card onto your computer, recording a program onto your HDD/SSD and then streaming it using media center software. It's the same thing except it's off-site.
You're doing the grunt-work and there's no middle-man collecting a fee. What you do for yourself is okay, because it was received by the end-user for the end-user. If you paid your neighbor to set up your system, host it, and manage it, it would not be okay.
I have no sympathy for you, because you CHOOSE to live in a remote location.
Until this morning, I was on the side of Aereo, taking the position that if I can plant an antenna on my own roof in Minneapolis, why can't I rent a house in Los Angeles and plant an antenna on that roof, routing the signal to my TV in Mpls. All Aereo did was miniaturize the process.
Today, I realized that is not quite true. By renting the house in LA, presumably spending a few weeks a year there, I have partial residency there, and THAT grants me the right to view the broadcast signals there. Because the broadcast rights are sold/granted to the networks for intended viewing by residents of a specific geography. It's entirely reasonable for them to expect that their broadcast in LA will not be strong enough to reach residents of Mpls. If I become a part-time resident of LA, they can then expect me to access that broadcast. But merely renting an antenna does not give me residency status. And apparently, neither does it give me the privilege of watching LA broadcasts.
I see this as a balanced decision, and a just one.
If you want to improve reception in the backwaters of CO, then you need to either get a better antenna on your roof, or MOVE. As it should be.
You cannot watch a broadcast from LA in Minneapolis on Aereo. If you ever used the mobile app it won't work unless you first turn on location service and it verifies that you are indeed within the broadcast area that you're trying to access. They were very thorough in making sure that they didn’t violate geographical limitations.
You're doing the grunt-work and there's no middle-man collecting a fee. What you do for yourself is okay, because it was received by the end-user for the end-user. If you paid your neighbor to set up your system, host it, and manage it, it would not be okay.
Aereo should announce a physical DVR that replicates the cloud based functions of their service.
Using that device I could receive TV signals at my house (heck pass my CATV signals too), then forward & receive programming over the internet to my tablet and phone.
Less economy of scale but 100% legal according to this ruling and the Betamax ruling.
You are not making a profit doing it. You are not selling that stream access to your neighbor. That’s the difference. The antenna rental argument is a straw man and the SCOTUS confirmed that. This has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with profiting from someone else’s copyrighted content.
They're renting you a DVR just like the cable companies do. The content is being aired freely, and paid for by advertising that the user must watch.
How is grabbing a open broadcast signal stealing? Those people who have only their "local" stations broadcasting openly, they are stealing according to you.
Why are you justifying something you don't know anything about? Just because you feel that something should work the way YOU feel it should work, doesn't mean you get to break the law to do it.
The correct way for Aereo to do it would have been to license the broadcasting from the networks they were stealing from.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
You are streaming it to yourself. Now start charging people a fee to watch your sling box content.
DVR is covered, so long as it is just your personal use, under the fair use exemption that goes back to the Betamax days.
Those apps were set up by the copyright holders per their rights.
And that's exactly what you're doing with Aereo, renting your own personal DVR from them for your personal use. For every user there is one antenna and one DVR for personal usage.
Like it or not, the court is correct. Courts have long ruled against entities that are trying to skirt the intent of a law through various legal technicalities. That is exactly what Aereo is trying to do. Face it, if that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have had to invent a system that uses thousands (eventually millions) of tiny antennas to make the system work. Their legal loophole clearly violates the intent of the law. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law, since this is not a constitutional issue. The solution is for Congress to change the law and have a president sign it into law.
The streaming radio stations (iTunes, Pandora etc.) actually pay for the music they are streaming. This would be like somebody recording your favorite station and then streaming it out without permission.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
You are not profiting from the sales or transmission of copyrighted material.
Aereo should announce a physical DVR that replicates the cloud based functions of their service.
Using that device I could receive TV signals at my house (heck pass my CATV signals too), then forward & receive programming over the internet to my tablet and phone.
Less economy of scale but 100% legal according to this ruling and the Betamax ruling.
It is a physical DVR. When you watch anything on Aereo you're actually watching a recording. It was recorded on a few seconds earlier but nonetheless a user initiated recording off a DVR you leased off premise.
Seems like the right decision to me. The broadcasters have the right to distribute their copyrighted content as they see fit. Just yesterday ABC announced some of their content would be live on Apple TV. That is the way it should be done. Grabbing the signal out of the air is basically stealing. It is protected just like any other content. Have you ever read the copyright on Apple's keynote broadcast? No rebroadcast, reproducing, re-streaming, etc. is permitted.
Aereo knew rebroadcasting was infringing which is why they came up with the convoluted scheme of renting your own remote antenna. Technologically there is no need to have thousands of separate antennas, it was just a legal end run around and it didn't work.
I agree.
For the Aereo service to work, Aereo must capture/record the broadcast digital/analog signal transmitted over the airwaves from a high-powered long-range antennae, re-encode the signal to be compatible with the Internet, and re-transmit/stream the signal from its servers. Is it legal for Aereo to capture a live Copyrighted Telecast of an NFL game from a broadcast signal and stream it through the Internet? The answer is no.
What many consider to be "public" airwaves, are actually privately owned "licensed" radio spectrum purchased from the FCC. Media companies transmit their copyrighted content that are subsidized by sponsored advertisers in lieu of a paid subscription. This is the equivalent of going to a movie theater and watching a movie that is paid for by an advertiser, without having to purchase a ticket to view the movie. Without advertisers paying for the movie, viewers have to pay to see the content.
Television is not free. It is sponsored programming. If no sponsors paid for the programming, television will cease to be free, and the content will require a paid subscription (subsidized by advertisers) to view. The presumption is that a live broadcast signal is legal to capture and re-transmit, when in fact, a live broadcast signal is intended to be transmitted to receivers that do not re-transmit the signal. It is not legal to re-transmit a broadcast signal to the public without authorization of the author of the transmitted signal.
Broadcast television is technically a closed system that acts as open source entertainment. But a television with a digital receiver is simply a licensed box authorized to receive the signal - that is a contract between those who transmit the paid programming and those who view the paid programming - in that, the transmitter is basically saying that we are allowing you to freely watch copyrighted content in exchange of showing you sales pitches embedded in the content.
Simply because you can does not mean that you can. Aereo is simply demonstrating that people would like to watch TV through the Internet. What broadcasters will likely do is stream their signals online like ABC does, through software that requires you to log in to view the channel - or through Apple's servers that would turn the channels into Apple TV apps.
ABC has already done this. Other broadcast networks will likely follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coxnvox
Another ruling designed to crush the consumer and uphold the antiquated ways of the evil corporations. I live in the mountains where, even though I am only 20 miles from downtown Denver as the crow flies, I cannot get TV via an antenna. And even cable conveniently stops a few hundred feet from my neighborhood so my only option was to get locked into a long-term, expensive contract with a satellite company. Aereo was a godsend. Figures that somebody would find a way to shut it down. Irritating.
If you know someone in the broadcast area, why don't you buy a set-top digital receiver box, a strong outdoor antenna you can mount on a pole on top of the house, a Sling Box, and purchase cheap broadband for about $10 to $15 a month (that you would share (and/or split the cost) with the host house), and watch live TV through your HTPC (Home Theater PC), or ROKU.
So, what can you do in this situation to watch television 20 miles away?
1. Buy an antenna.
2. Buy a digital set-top box with a DVR (like a Tivo), that can connect to the antenna and receive OTA channels.
3. Buy a Sling Box that can control the set-top box, and transmit the signal through the internet.
4. Take the antenna, digital set-top box, and Sling Box, and set it up in someone's home in the broadcast area who has broadband
(or, as I said earlier, buy cheap broadband and split the costs).
Put them together, what do you get?
Stream live television and recorded programming from your DVR through the Sling Box to your computer, phone, or tablet, anywhere you have an internet connection; and remotely control it live.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
Is it legal for you to install a Slingbox in your home and transmit an NFL game through the internet to the public? You may be able to install a Slingbox in your home and transmit an NFL game to yourself through the Internet; that does not make it legal to do so. There's a huge difference between viewing something on your own and sharing it with others. With the Slingbox, you wouldn't be able to make your Slingbox content PUBLICLY available, which is not at all the same as streaming your content to yourself remotely. You also can't legally hold a public viewing of an NFL game.
So what is the difference in what Aereo is doing, in that they are planting their antennae clusters with the intent of capturing, recording, re-encoding, and re-transmitting (or streaming) broadcast signals from their servers to multiple recipients like a giant online Slingbox? The presumption is that a live broadcast signal is legal to capture and re-transmit, when in fact, a live broadcast signal is intended to be transmitted to receivers that do not re-transmit the signal. It is not legal to re-transmit a broadcast signal without authorization of the author of the transmitted signal.
What you call Free Broadcast Television, is the equivalent of signing up for Facebook or Google's services, in exchange for sending targeted ads to an audience through a device that is licensed to receive those targeted ads (the equivalent of a television channel). Television is a distribution channel of paid programming backed by advertising dollars. It is free to the audience who will see these ads and will potentially buy. The contract is the license to see this "local" programming on a specific radio frequency that is limited to a local "regional" market that has been demographically profiled - which allows advertisers to send targeted ads to a particular audience who is believed to watch specified programs.
Broadcasters transmit their signals to receivers that are only authorized to receive one copy of the signal, but are not authorized to re-transmit the signal to other receivers. With Aereo, you don't rent your own antenna in the cluster, because Aereo captures transmitted broadcast signals, encodes them onto their servers, and streams multiple copies of that same signal to many people all over the Internet through their website. Unauthorized re-transmission of a broadcast signal is illegal, because the content contained in the broadcast signal is copyrighted content, and the broadcaster has a limited license as to what can be transmitted, and in what region.
This is no different than radio stations having to pay artists royalties through ASCAP when they play their music that is sponsored by advertisers. To take a radio stations broadcast, and stream the music that the radio station plays would be a copyright violation and would be the equivalent of pirating the signal. Which is what Aereo is actually doing. Aereo is basically pirating OTA broadcasts signals, and transmitting them without authorization.
It is a presumption to assume that Television is a free entitlement. It is not.
It is a physical DVR. When you watch anything on Aereo you're actually watching a recording. It was recorded on a few seconds earlier but nonetheless a user initiated recording off a DVR you leased off premise.
I be willing to bet that it is all a smoke screen. I wouldn't be surprised if it is eventually discovered that the antenna is fake and the DVR is one single application which addresses a database on a disk array. They may tell you you have your own physical discrete equipment but do you really think if 100,000 people are watching the same channel at the same time that they are going to have 100,000 simultaneous encoding streams that are all exactly the same and they are going to write to 100,000 HDD discrete storage partitions? Personally I doubt it is even possible.
Comments
Again, how is it any different from you installing a tuner card onto your computer, recording a program onto your HDD/SSD and then streaming it using media center software. It's the same thing except it's off-site.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
You are not making a profit doing it. You are not selling that stream access to your neighbor. That’s the difference. The antenna rental argument is a straw man and the SCOTUS confirmed that. This has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with profiting from someone else’s copyrighted content.
Again, how is it any different from you installing a tuner card onto your computer, recording a program onto your HDD/SSD and then streaming it using media center software. It's the same thing except it's off-site.
You're doing the grunt-work and there's no middle-man collecting a fee. What you do for yourself is okay, because it was received by the end-user for the end-user. If you paid your neighbor to set up your system, host it, and manage it, it would not be okay.
You cannot watch a broadcast from LA in Minneapolis on Aereo. If you ever used the mobile app it won't work unless you first turn on location service and it verifies that you are indeed within the broadcast area that you're trying to access. They were very thorough in making sure that they didn’t violate geographical limitations.
Show me that law.
Using that device I could receive TV signals at my house (heck pass my CATV signals too), then forward & receive programming over the internet to my tablet and phone.
Less economy of scale but 100% legal according to this ruling and the Betamax ruling.
They're renting you a DVR just like the cable companies do. The content is being aired freely, and paid for by advertising that the user must watch.
ABC Inc. v. Aereo, No. 13-461
Show me that law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Recording by the private individual for their own use falls under "Fair use", fundamentally due to being non-commercial in nature.
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
How is grabbing a open broadcast signal stealing? Those people who have only their "local" stations broadcasting openly, they are stealing according to you.
Why are you justifying something you don't know anything about? Just because you feel that something should work the way YOU feel it should work, doesn't mean you get to break the law to do it.
The correct way for Aereo to do it would have been to license the broadcasting from the networks they were stealing from.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
You are streaming it to yourself. Now start charging people a fee to watch your sling box content.
How is this different than streaming radio over the internet?
And that's exactly what you're doing with Aereo, renting your own personal DVR from them for your personal use. For every user there is one antenna and one DVR for personal usage.
Like it or not, the court is correct. Courts have long ruled against entities that are trying to skirt the intent of a law through various legal technicalities. That is exactly what Aereo is trying to do. Face it, if that wasn't the case, they wouldn't have had to invent a system that uses thousands (eventually millions) of tiny antennas to make the system work. Their legal loophole clearly violates the intent of the law. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law, since this is not a constitutional issue. The solution is for Congress to change the law and have a president sign it into law.
The streaming radio stations (iTunes, Pandora etc.) actually pay for the music they are streaming. This would be like somebody recording your favorite station and then streaming it out without permission.
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
You are not profiting from the sales or transmission of copyrighted material.
It is a physical DVR. When you watch anything on Aereo you're actually watching a recording. It was recorded on a few seconds earlier but nonetheless a user initiated recording off a DVR you leased off premise.
Seems like the right decision to me. The broadcasters have the right to distribute their copyrighted content as they see fit. Just yesterday ABC announced some of their content would be live on Apple TV. That is the way it should be done. Grabbing the signal out of the air is basically stealing. It is protected just like any other content. Have you ever read the copyright on Apple's keynote broadcast? No rebroadcast, reproducing, re-streaming, etc. is permitted.
Aereo knew rebroadcasting was infringing which is why they came up with the convoluted scheme of renting your own remote antenna. Technologically there is no need to have thousands of separate antennas, it was just a legal end run around and it didn't work.
I agree.
For the Aereo service to work, Aereo must capture/record the broadcast digital/analog signal transmitted over the airwaves from a high-powered long-range antennae, re-encode the signal to be compatible with the Internet, and re-transmit/stream the signal from its servers. Is it legal for Aereo to capture a live Copyrighted Telecast of an NFL game from a broadcast signal and stream it through the Internet? The answer is no.
What many consider to be "public" airwaves, are actually privately owned "licensed" radio spectrum purchased from the FCC. Media companies transmit their copyrighted content that are subsidized by sponsored advertisers in lieu of a paid subscription. This is the equivalent of going to a movie theater and watching a movie that is paid for by an advertiser, without having to purchase a ticket to view the movie. Without advertisers paying for the movie, viewers have to pay to see the content.
Television is not free. It is sponsored programming. If no sponsors paid for the programming, television will cease to be free, and the content will require a paid subscription (subsidized by advertisers) to view. The presumption is that a live broadcast signal is legal to capture and re-transmit, when in fact, a live broadcast signal is intended to be transmitted to receivers that do not re-transmit the signal. It is not legal to re-transmit a broadcast signal to the public without authorization of the author of the transmitted signal.
Broadcast television is technically a closed system that acts as open source entertainment. But a television with a digital receiver is simply a licensed box authorized to receive the signal - that is a contract between those who transmit the paid programming and those who view the paid programming - in that, the transmitter is basically saying that we are allowing you to freely watch copyrighted content in exchange of showing you sales pitches embedded in the content.
Simply because you can does not mean that you can. Aereo is simply demonstrating that people would like to watch TV through the Internet. What broadcasters will likely do is stream their signals online like ABC does, through software that requires you to log in to view the channel - or through Apple's servers that would turn the channels into Apple TV apps.
ABC has already done this. Other broadcast networks will likely follow.
Another ruling designed to crush the consumer and uphold the antiquated ways of the evil corporations. I live in the mountains where, even though I am only 20 miles from downtown Denver as the crow flies, I cannot get TV via an antenna. And even cable conveniently stops a few hundred feet from my neighborhood so my only option was to get locked into a long-term, expensive contract with a satellite company. Aereo was a godsend. Figures that somebody would find a way to shut it down. Irritating.
If you know someone in the broadcast area, why don't you buy a set-top digital receiver box, a strong outdoor antenna you can mount on a pole on top of the house, a Sling Box, and purchase cheap broadband for about $10 to $15 a month (that you would share (and/or split the cost) with the host house), and watch live TV through your HTPC (Home Theater PC), or ROKU.
So, what can you do in this situation to watch television 20 miles away?
1. Buy an antenna.
2. Buy a digital set-top box with a DVR (like a Tivo), that can connect to the antenna and receive OTA channels.
3. Buy a Sling Box that can control the set-top box, and transmit the signal through the internet.
4. Take the antenna, digital set-top box, and Sling Box, and set it up in someone's home in the broadcast area who has broadband
(or, as I said earlier, buy cheap broadband and split the costs).
Put them together, what do you get?
Stream live television and recorded programming from your DVR through the Sling Box to your computer, phone, or tablet, anywhere you have an internet connection; and remotely control it live.
Oh, and by the way...
Here is an OTA receiver with a built in DVR.
http://www.amazon.com/brite-View-BV-980H-Digital-Supported-Shifting/dp/B004XIB9UA
How is it any different than you watching a program that you DVR'd over Slingbox, or recording a TV show onto a HDD, and using a media center like Plex to stream it?
Is it legal for you to install a Slingbox in your home and transmit an NFL game through the internet to the public? You may be able to install a Slingbox in your home and transmit an NFL game to yourself through the Internet; that does not make it legal to do so. There's a huge difference between viewing something on your own and sharing it with others. With the Slingbox, you wouldn't be able to make your Slingbox content PUBLICLY available, which is not at all the same as streaming your content to yourself remotely. You also can't legally hold a public viewing of an NFL game.
So what is the difference in what Aereo is doing, in that they are planting their antennae clusters with the intent of capturing, recording, re-encoding, and re-transmitting (or streaming) broadcast signals from their servers to multiple recipients like a giant online Slingbox? The presumption is that a live broadcast signal is legal to capture and re-transmit, when in fact, a live broadcast signal is intended to be transmitted to receivers that do not re-transmit the signal. It is not legal to re-transmit a broadcast signal without authorization of the author of the transmitted signal.
What you call Free Broadcast Television, is the equivalent of signing up for Facebook or Google's services, in exchange for sending targeted ads to an audience through a device that is licensed to receive those targeted ads (the equivalent of a television channel). Television is a distribution channel of paid programming backed by advertising dollars. It is free to the audience who will see these ads and will potentially buy. The contract is the license to see this "local" programming on a specific radio frequency that is limited to a local "regional" market that has been demographically profiled - which allows advertisers to send targeted ads to a particular audience who is believed to watch specified programs.
Broadcasters transmit their signals to receivers that are only authorized to receive one copy of the signal, but are not authorized to re-transmit the signal to other receivers. With Aereo, you don't rent your own antenna in the cluster, because Aereo captures transmitted broadcast signals, encodes them onto their servers, and streams multiple copies of that same signal to many people all over the Internet through their website. Unauthorized re-transmission of a broadcast signal is illegal, because the content contained in the broadcast signal is copyrighted content, and the broadcaster has a limited license as to what can be transmitted, and in what region.
This is no different than radio stations having to pay artists royalties through ASCAP when they play their music that is sponsored by advertisers. To take a radio stations broadcast, and stream the music that the radio station plays would be a copyright violation and would be the equivalent of pirating the signal. Which is what Aereo is actually doing. Aereo is basically pirating OTA broadcasts signals, and transmitting them without authorization.
It is a presumption to assume that Television is a free entitlement. It is not.
You got the Slingbox and app for free? Last I checked the box was at least $99 and the app was $15.
I be willing to bet that it is all a smoke screen. I wouldn't be surprised if it is eventually discovered that the antenna is fake and the DVR is one single application which addresses a database on a disk array. They may tell you you have your own physical discrete equipment but do you really think if 100,000 people are watching the same channel at the same time that they are going to have 100,000 simultaneous encoding streams that are all exactly the same and they are going to write to 100,000 HDD discrete storage partitions? Personally I doubt it is even possible.